The consequences of holding an entity (i.e., the belief that a group's characteristics are fixed) or incremental (i.e., the belief that a group's characteristics are malleable) implicit theory about groups was examined for stereotyping and perceptions of group entitativity. Two studies showed that implicit theories about groups affect stereotyping by changing perceptions of group entitativity. Study 1 found that entity theorists were more likely to stereotype than incremental theorists and that perception of group entitativity significantly accounted for this relation. In Study 2, implicit theories of groups were manipulated via instruction set and entity theorists stereotyped more and perceived groups as more entitative than incremental theorists. Again, the effect of implicit theory was significantly, although partially, mediated by perceptions of group entitativity. The roles of implicit theories about groups and perceptions of group entitativity are discussed regarding stereotyping.
Brewer, M.B., Hong, Y.-Y., & Li, Q. (2004). Dynamic entitativity: Perceiving groups as actors . In V. Yzerbyt, C. M. Judd, & O. Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism (pp. 17-38). Philadelphia: Psychology.
2.
Crawford, M.T., Sherman, S.J., & Hamilton, D.L. (2002). Perceived entitativity, stereotype formation, and the interchangeability of group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1076-1094.
3.
Dweck, C.S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. New York: Psychology Press.
4.
Fiske, A.P. (1992). The four elements of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review , 99, 689-723.
Hamilton, D.L., Sherman, S.J., & Castelli, L. (2002). A group by any other name ...: The role of entitativity in group perception. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 139-168). New York: John Wiley.
7.
Hamilton, D.L., Sherman, S.J., & Rodgers, J.S. (2004). Perceiving the groupness of groups: Entitativity, homogeneity, essentialism, and stereotypes. In V. Yzerbyt, C. M. Judd, & O. Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism (pp. 39-60). Philadelphia: Psychology.
8.
Haslam, N., Bastain, B., Bain, P., & Kashima, Y. (2006). Psychological essentialism, implicit theories, and intergroup relations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9, 63-76.
9.
Lepore, L., & Brown, R. (1997). Category and stereotype activation: Is prejudice inevitable? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72,275-287.
10.
Levy, S.R., & Dweck, C.S. (1999). The impact of children's static versus dynamic conceptions of people on stereotype formationChild Development , 70, 1163-1180.
11.
Levy, S.R., Plaks, J.E., Hong, Y., Chui, C., & Dweck, C.S. (2001). Static versus dynamic theories and the perception of groups: Different routes to different destinations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 156-168.
12.
Levy, S.R., Stroessner, S.J., & Dweck, C.S. (1998). Stereotype formation and endorsement: The role of implicit theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 74, 1421-1436.
13.
Lickel, B., Hamilton, D.L., & Sherman, S.J. (2001). Elements of a lay theory of groups: Types of groups, relational styles, and the perception of group entitativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 129-140.
14.
Lickel, B., Schmader, T., Hamilton, D.L. (2003). A case of collective responsibility: Who else was to blame for the Columbine High School shootings? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 194-204.
15.
McConnell, A.R. (2001). Implicit theories: Consequences for social judgments of individuals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 37, 215-227.
16.
McConnell, A.R., Sherman, S.J., & Hamilton, D.L. (1997). Target entitativity: Implications for information processing about individual and group targets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 750-762.
17.
Molden, D.C., & Dweck, C.S. (2006). Finding “meaning” in psychology: A lay theories approach to self-regulation, social perception, and social development . American Psychologist, 61, 192-203.
18.
Nisbett, R.E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108, 291-310.
19.
Plaks, J.E., Stroessner, S.J., Dweck, C.S., & Sherman, J.W. (2001). Person theories and attention allocation: Preferences for stereotypic versus counterstereotypic information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 876-893.
20.
Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717-731.
21.
Rothbart, M., & Taylor, M. (1992). Category labels and social reality: Do we view social categories as natural kinds? In G. R. Semin & K. Fiedler (Eds.), Language and social cognition (pp. 11-36). London: Sage.
22.
Rydell, R.J., & McConnell, A.R. (2005). Perceptions of entitativity and attitude change. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 31, 99-110.
23.
Sherman, S.J., Castelli, L., & Hamilton, D.L. (2002). The spontaneous use of a group typology as an organizing principle in memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 328-342.
24.
Susskind, J., Mauer, K., Thakkar, V., Hamilton, D.L., & Sherman, J.W. (1999). Perceiving individuals and groups: Expectancies, dispositional inferences, and causal attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 328-342.
25.
Yzerbyt, V.Y., Rocher, S., & Schadron, G. (1997). Stereotypes as explanations: A subjective essentialistic view of group perception. In R. Spears, P. J. Oakes, N. Ellemers , & S. A. Haslam (Eds.), The social psychology of stereotyping and group life (pp. 20-50). Cambridge , UK: Blackwell.
